We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17 (2002), No. 3     15. June 2002
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17 (2002), No. 3  (15.06.2002)

Page 377-382

Histomorphometric Analysis of the Bone-Implant Contact Obtained with 4 Different Implant Surface Treatments Placed Side by Side in the Dog Mandible
Novaes jr., Arthur Belém / Souza, Sérgio L. S. / Oliveira, Paulo T. de / Souza, Adriana M. M. S.
Purpose: The different implant systems available today present several types of surface treatment, with the aim of optimization of bone-implant contact. This study compared 4 different types of implant surfaces. Materials and Methods: The first, second, third, and fourth mandibular premolars were extracted from 5 young adult mongrel male dogs. Ninety days after removal, four 3.75-mm-diameter, 10-mm-long screw-type implants (Paragon) were placed with different surface treatments in mandibular hemiarches. The dogs received 2 implants of each of the following surface treatments: smooth (machined), titanium plasma spray (TPS), hydroxyapatite coating (HA), and sandblasting with soluble particles (SBM). The implants were maintained unloaded for 90 days. After this period, the animals were sacrificed, and the hemimandibles were extracted and histologically processed to obtain nondecalcified sections. Two longitudinal ground sections were made for each implant and analyzed under light microscopy coupled to a computerized system for histomorphometry. Results: The following means were obtained for bone-implant contact percentage: machined = 41.7%, TPS = 48.9%, HA = 57.9%, and SBM = 68.5%. Discussion: The means for all treatments that added roughness to the implant surface were numerically superior to the mean found for the machined surface. However, this difference was statistically significant only between groups SBM and machined (Tukey test, P < .05). Conclusions: The SBM-treated surface provided a greater bone-implant contact than a machined surface after 90 days without loading in this model.